Foreclosure Defense Florida


foreclosure-capacityCapacity, Capacity, Capacity. I’ve argued that word over and over again up one side of the state and down the other.   In all of civil litigation, the parties are required to clearly and specifically identify themselves but in 95% of foreclosure cases, the banksters get away with not pleading their entity status or authority at all.

It’s a simple thing and a very basic and fundamental part of all litigation, but still after all these years, they are failing to do so.   Why are they pushing back so hard against this?   Sloppiness?   Laziness?   I don’tknowidness?   The real impact of all this will be felt for decades to come as title attorneys attempt to straighten out and clarify who exactly owns properties that have been run through the foreclosure gauntlet only to come out the other side with intact liens or other problems.

On a more grand scale however, the question is why are our courts executing judgments for millions of dollars and transferring real property into trusts and corporations that are not properly identified?   There are so many squishy things that happen with these properties and plaintiffs….assignments of bid, motion to substitute party plaintiff, deeding from one entity to another post-sale. Which brings us right back to the question that must be asked anytime a lawsuit is filed….who is filing this lawsuit and do they have the capacity and legal authority to bring the claims?

Read this lawsuit for an example of how it is done correctly….



  • JamesM says:

    Right, exactly!

    Capacity, who the party is, a real person or fictitious, who they represent, where they are located and under what state is the entity is incorporated, or what document shows the existence of the legal entity alleged to exist. In what capacity do they come before the court.

    It would not hurt if they were to plead if registered to do business in the state, and are, or are not, licensed as mortgage brokers/sellers with the states board that regulates same. State of FL requires individuals or mortgage companies to acquire one of three different types of licenses to originate, or sell or service more than (don’t quote me, but I think its is 4), in a year.

  • Sean says:

    The funnier part of this whole WAMU FDIC debacle is that settlement has not occurred on this transaction.
    There have been repeated updates extending final settlement issued by the FDIC that extend the closing date for the Purchase and Assumption agreement. This means that technically the servicing rights (which are listed as an asset that will transfer at settlement) have never transferred from the FDIC. The FDIC and Chase are letting the contract float open like that because no one wants to associated liabilities that come with the WAMU loans.
    There is a similar situation with US Bank and all of the Downey savings loans. I have been trying to get some people’s attention on this issue for a while and would love any support. We have filed against Chase in Sonoma, CA with the FDIC theory and are using the US Bank theory in a BK court here too. I would love to share this stuff with more people…


    • Charles R. Powell says:


      I work at a law firm in Henderson, NV. We are representing the homeowners in a case against JP Morgan Chase. Our clients’ loan started with Washington Mutual. One of the issues is whether their loan was in fact transferred to JP Morgan Chase. Any assistance you could provide on this issue would be most appreciated such as Pleadings in the case you filed against Chase in Sonoma, CA with the FDIC theory and any evidence you may have that the servicing rights have never transferred from the FDIC under the Purchase and Assumption Agreement for the WAMU loans. Please send me an email to Thank you very much. Sincerely, Charles R. Powell

Leave a Reply